Reinventing the Regimental System (written 1998ish)
I. Introduction
There are many exciting changes sweeping the army these days. We have a new officer
management system in place, and we have many discussions taking place about how to
effectively redesign our divisions, brigades, and battalions to meet the challenges of the
future. The controversial proposals of COL MacGregor (Breaking the Phalanx) are
winning over many fans (myself included!) and the digital technologies of Force XXI are
reshaping our battlefield.
However, outside of developing a new system of rating the officers, we seem to have
done remarkably little to reshape our personnel system to meet our challenges in the
future. I propose a new take on the Army`s long-ignored regimental system. I will focus it
on combat arms battalions, and discuss it within the framework of our current force
structure. Although I believe that a brigade or "group" system is definitely in our future,
this new regimental system can be implemented in our current force structure.
II. Concepts
The biggest changes I propose are in the management of the assignments of officers and
NCOs within the force. In addition, the management of their professional education and
"offline" assignments - ROTC, recruiting, drill status, etc. - is also changed.
The way most of this is implemented is by removing the responsibility for personnel
assignments from one centralized location in Washington, and moving it to the branch
homes, placing it in the hands of the new Regimental Headquarters.
Another change is in the assignment of soldiers to their battalions within the regiment.
Soldiers would remain within their regiment as much as possible. Each regiment will
have battalions both stateside and OCONUS, and possibly even in several different
places stateside. Soldiers would rotate between the battalions of their regiment; those first
assigned to 41st Armor could be expected to stay with 41st Armor as long as they are in
the service.
Last, but hardly least, I propose a change in the way our incoming soldiers are trained,
focusing it toward a regimental-based OSUT system, where soldiers enlist into the
regiment they intend to be a member of, and then are trained by that regiment.
III. Regimental Headquarters
In order to effectively implement this new system, we will have to create a new
administrative control center, the Regimental Headquarters. The new Regimental
Headquarters will consist of approximately 15-20 soldiers. First and foremost among
them is the Colonel of the Regiment. Previously an honorary title, the Colonel of the
Regiment is now responsible for the development of his officers and soldiers, their
assignments, and their professional development. It is important to note that while the
Colonel of the Regiment is an important person in the professional lives of the soldiers,
he is not a tactical leader. "His" battalions belong to, and fight with, their respective
brigades. He is a mentor, planner, and developer, bringing his soldiers along as they
progress through their careers.
Of course, he`ll have help. Working for him is an Adjutant (O-4) who controls 4-6
records clerks, charged with maintaining a copy of the professional files of the soldiers of
the regiment; the copy in Washington is now for record-keeping only. Soldiers deal with
their Regimental Headquarters for matters of records.
The Colonel of the Regiment also maintains the services of a CSM, who advises him on
enlisted matters. The CSM would be the overseer of the Regimental Drill Sergeant
selection program. He would also oversee the one-week "Regimental Block" added to
ANCOC and BNCOC for the the continuing regimental development of the NCOs of the
regiment.
The rest of the staff is very different from a conventional staff. Two LTCs work for him,
one overseeing the professional development of the soldiers of the Regiment, and the
other responsible for their assignments.
The assignments officer has several people working for him, one managing enlisted
assignments, two for NCO assignments (E-5 and E-6/7), one for the Lieutenants, one for
Captains and Majors on the Command Track (see below) and one for Captains and
Majors on the Warfighter Support Track (see below). Once an officer reaches LTC, he is
tracked and managed from Washington. Similarly, once an NCO hits E-8, he is also
tracked from Washington, while maintaining close contact with the Regimental Sergeant
Major.
The assignments section is also the one that details officers outside of the regiment, to
functional areas, AC/RC and ROTC duties, and schoolhouse assignments, such as
AOB/AOC instructors.
The professional development officer works with the assignments officer to ensure that
all soldiers meet their professional education requirements, but also develops all
regimental training programs, and maintains the Regimental Drill Sergeant selection
program. He is charged with implementing the one-week "Regimental Blocks" in the
OBC and OAC cirriculum, as well as the "Blocks" for ANCOC and BNCOC, the latter in
close coordination with the CSM.
The development of the soldiers within their regiment is not simply limited to the
regiment`s history and traditions, but also the SOPs of their various battalions, tactics and
techniques unique to their regiments` assignments, and professional development topics
taught by the Colonel of the Regiment, intended to foster an open forum for the officers
and NCOs to exchange ideas.
III. Officer Development and Assignments
The biggest managemnt overhaul really comes within the officer system. The NCO
system is very effective, and needs little changing. The tracking of NCOs, their NCOERs,
and their assignments is working well, and would need few "tweaks" shifting from a
centralized system in Washington to a decentralized system in the Regiments. The officer
system on the other hand, needs work.
First (and likely most controversial), Lieutenants are extended in grade for a total of 6
years; three as a 2LT and three as a 1LT. Battalion commanders may present exceptional
cases to the Colonel of the Regiment for early promotion at two years from 2LT to 1LT.
They may also submit exceptional cases one year early for consideration to Captain.
These should never amount to more than one or two officers per battalion, and some
years may not include any. The key to making this work is for the Colonel of the
Regiment to closely monitor the battalion commanders to ensure that the system is not
being abused and that an officer is not recommended for early promotion because he was
the best of what might have been a mediocre year group. Of their 5-6 years as
Lieutenants, at least 3 years should be in the platoons as a leader. Time as an XO is
preferable over time as a staff officer, especially since the new tracking system for
Captains should keep staff jobs filled with O-3s without a hitch.
Second, Captains selections are now managed at the Regimental level. Every year, the
Colonel of the Regiment and his battalion commanders, as well as senior (LTC/COL)
members of the regiment who are currently serving outside of the regiment (joint staff,
AC/RC, etc.) confer for 3-4 days about which Lieutenants they want to promote. This
board should be at least 7 members, plus the Colonel of the Regiment. The selection rates
to Captain should still be fairly high.
However, this is only a small piece of the pie. In addition to selecting who is to be
promoted, this board also decides who goes into the "Command Track" and who gets
slotted into the "Warfighter Support" track. This decision would now be made in either
the 5th or 6th year of a normal officer`s service, giving the battalion commanders and the
Colonel of the Regiment ample time to evaluate their Lieutenants` leadership and
warfighting skills.
Ideally, splitting Captains into their tracks before command would work out to where
approximately 70-80% of all company command positions are filled with Command
Track Captains. The remainder would be filled by Warfighter Track Captains who either
just barely didn`t make the cut, or those who expressed a desire to be tracked as
Warfighters but were deemed by the Colonel of the Regiment to be to valuable not to
give a company command. Allowing Warfighters to command is not done to "tease"
them, but rather to limit the total number of Command Track Captains. Upon leaving
command, there are a very limited number of field grade Command Track positions - S-
3s and XOs - for Command Track Captains to look forward to; it may go down further
with the current proposals to combine the the position as the X3/OPS officer. Rather than
overload the Command Track and force another hard round of cuts at the field grade
level, opportunities can be given to those on the Warfighter track who are good enough to
command at the company level, but would make better Warfighter Support officers at the
levels of MAJ and above.
After the new Captains are selected, and their track identified, they are then handed off to
the assignments section. Most officers will spend their Lieutenant years at one duty
station, although they may (and should) alternate between the battalions of their regiment
if there is more than one present. After the advanced course, Warfighter Captains will
attend CAS3; Command Track Captains would not automatically attend, but may ask to
attend later on a space-available basis. The new Captains will then be assigned to another
battalion of their regiment, at a different duty station. It is likely (and desirable) that that
these new Captains will see many soldiers with whom they served at their old location,
since they are all in the same regiment.
Company command should be extended to 30 months, or two and a half years. For
commanders taking on HHC, they should spend 18 months in a line company, and 18-24
months in HHC. This stability of leadership is currently sorely lacking, and the
revolving-door method of assigning company commanders does not improve our combat
readiness. Everyone will not have a chance at company command. However this new
system does not punish officers for not commanding. Warfighter Track officers are those
that support the company commanders, either as primary staff officers (S-1, S-4, S-3Air,
even S-2 and BMO) or working at the brigade level as operations officers, battle
Captains, and LNOs.
Captains will serve their first tour of duty following their advanced course with their
regiment, preferably in their track (remember that some Warfighters will be in
command). Following his second regimental assignment, a normal Captain will have
spent between 8-11 years on active duty and between 7-10 of those in the regiment itself.
At that point, they become available for assignments outside of the regiment. Command
track officers, after leaving command, should expect duties as instructors at the various
advanced courses and as AC/RC advisors. Warfighters should be the first officers
released from regimental duty to work in the various battle labs and think-tanks around
the army, as well as duties such as recruiting command and joint staff assignments. Both
would have advanced civil schooling and alternate functional areas available to them, as
determined by the needs of the Army.
I have heard several arguments about the which track should be the primary pool of
officers for both ROTC instructors and CTC observer-controllers. I believe that both
should be available. When developing our new and upcoming officers in ROTC, both
tracks should be available to represent as many of the new officers` available options as
possible. Similarly, it would make little sense to have a Command Track Captain or
Major as an OC evaluating a Warfighter counterpart in a staff position. West Point
instructors should also be drawn from both.
Following this assignment outside of the regiment, or perhaps while in it, the Captains
would be in the zone for Major. Several different proposals bounced around regarding
who should control the promotions from O-3 to O-4. The best one we have is this:
Command Track Captains are handled by a centralized branch board. This would likely
be made up of the Colonels of the Regiments. Those not selected as Command Track
Majors would then have their packets shifted to the Warfighter Track promotion board.
This board would be a DA-centralized board made up of Warfighter Track officers of all
similar branches (combat arms, combat support, CSS) and would consider all of the
Warfighter Track officer records together.
The Warfighter promotion board is handled by all branches because many of the current
staff jobs at those levels, particularly international and joint staffs, are not branch-
specific. Those positions require a "combat arms officer" as opposed to an "armor
officer." This promotion board considers all Warfighters equally, with no quotas for any
specific branch. Command Track non-selects are offered a "second chance" before this
board because the cut in the Command Track is so tight. We need more commanders at
the company level than at the field grade level, and we need more staff officers at the
field grade levels. Forcing Command Track officers to compete with their Warfighter
counterparts should get us the best of all possible worlds: our top "stud" commanders and
leaders as battalion XOs and S-3s (and later, commanders), and our best planners,
organizers, and managers in line for our staff jobs. Command track Majors would spend
at least 2 years as an XO or S-3. Warfighters would spend at least 2 years in a primary
staff position somewhere above the battalion level. Again, following their initial
assignment, preferably in or around their regiment, officers would be available to the
myriad of "non-deployable" jobs in the Army.
Promotion to LTC and COL would be centralized at DA. First, a board would meet to
determine who passes the cut for battalion command (and brigade command at the next
level). Then, a board of General Officers would consider all the remaining officer records
together. By now, commanders have been identified and placed in preparatory training
for battalion and brigade command, but again, those that do not make the cut but are still
clearly capable of contributing, get their chance. This would also be the time when
officers could volunteer for terminal assignments in ROTC or AC/RC duty. By selecting
the battalion commanders before the open board meets, we turn around one of the more
wacky conventions of our current system: waiting to see if officers pass the promotion
board before selecting them for command. If they are legitimately being considered for
command, then they better damn well be able to pass the promotion board.
IV. Enlisted soldiers and NCOs
Soldiers would now enlist into particular regiments within their MOS. Obviously this
would be tougher to manage for the CSS branches like supply and transportation (what
regiment would a 77F belong to, anyway) but they could easily be brought up to speed
upon joining a "line" regiment, such as 16th Infantry or 33rd Armor.
Upon enlisting into 41st regiment, the soldier reports to OSUT within that regiment. For
example, if a soldier enlists 19K for the 41st Armor, then he reports to Ft. Knox, to 6-41
AR, the battalion of 41st designated to conduct OSUT. These battalions would be quite
small, perhaps only 2 training companies and an HHC for administrative control, but they
would be made up entirely of the soldiers of their respective regiments. Drill sergeants
are selected from within their regiments by thier Srill Sergeant selctiton process (a CSM-
managed program), and assigned to their branch home where they are trained collectively
as Drill Instructors before reporting to their individual regiments for duty.
OSUT/ AIT now includes more than just soldier skills. They would be expected to report
to their battalions with knowledge of the regiment`s history and tradition. Overseeing this
entire process is not just 6-41`s commander but the Colonel of the Regiment, who is co-
located with the training battalion of his regiment. Once assigned to the regiment, the
soldier stays with them. Promotion points are managed at the regimental level. If one
regiment is short on qualified 19D30s, they promote from within the regiment, to
recognize excellence within their regiment.
E-7 boards are handled at the regimental level, with E-8 boards being the first truly
centralized boards for NCOs. E-9s, of course, would be handled Army-wide, like General
Officers.
V. Where we are now
We currently have 22 different Armor battalions on active duty, with 15 different
regiments represented. On the cavalry side, we have 20 different squadrons, representing
10 regiments. I tallied 1st Cavalry division`s tank battalions with cavalry designations as
part of the cavalry regiments. None of these totals include the training battalions at Ft.
Knox. Very few of these regiments have much of an identity as a regiment. The obvious
exception to this would be the ACRs, who each have all of their squadron co-located.
VI. Where we need to be
I propose we redesignate units as appropriate so that our 22 Armor battalions are split
only among 5 regiments. As an example, I will use a hypothetical regiment, the 41st
Armor. The Colonel of the Regiment is stationed at Ft. Knox, with the Regimental
Headquarters and 6-41 AR, the regiment`s OSUT battalion. 6-41 AR includes HHC,
under which the Regimental HQ falls administratively, and A, B and C Companies. Each
company has 4 training platoons and an administrative platoon except C Company. C has
only 2 training platoons and provides all of the 19D soldiers for the 41st AR. We could
even add a D Company to train the 41st`s mechanics.
While attending their initial entry training, the new members of the 41st AR, officer and
enlisted alike, attend the "Iron Dragon" Ball, a traditional 41st AR event. When the
soldiers of B, 6-41 AR are on the gunnery range, the new Lieutenants of 41st AR
attending their basic course come out and shoot with them. Other traditional 41st Armor
events take place, such as the "First Monday Retreat," when all members of the 41st
Armor on post stand in formation for retreat on the first Monday of every month. Those
soldiers earning distinctive honors from the regiment would be given the opportunity to
wear some distinctive regimental award on their uniforms, not unlike the "Hamby" of the
OPFOR.
1-41 and 2-41 are both located at Ft. Stewart. 3-41 is in Germany, and 4-41 is at Ft.
Lewis. This gives the members of the 41st Armor Regiment three different duty stations
in widely varying locations where they can find themselves stationed, not including time
in schools or other "off-line" assignments. With 22 battalions to split between only five
regiments, many soldiers could find themselves with even more options.
A typical officer joining 41st Armor would complete his basic course, then head to Ft.
Stewart. There, he spends four years in 2-41 Armor, two as a platoon leader, and two as
an XO. An opening comes up in 1-41`s mortar platoon, and he gets the chance to take it.
All this time, he is joining his regiment on the first Monday of every month for retreat at
the post flagpole, just as he did in the basic course.
At year 6, he heads to the advanced course, having been selected for Captain. The
Colonel of the Regiment and the 41st Armor`s Captains` board have decided the he would
serve best on the Warfighter Track. While at the advanced course, he gets his orders to
Germany, and upon completion of CAS3 reports to the brigade headquarters controlling
3-41 AR. He serves 18 months as an assistant operations officer and battle captain when
the BMO position opens up in 3-41. Our Lieutenant had a great maintenance track record
as an XO in Georgia, and his old commander just showed up at 3-41 AR as the S-3 and
recommends him to the battalion commander as a good candidate for BMO. After 18
months as the BMO, he volunteers for ROTC duty, intending to work on his Master`s
degree while teaching.
After ROTC, our Captain has 14 years in service, and has probably already gone before
the Major`s board on the Warfighter Track. How far off of our typical officer progression
is he? He has not commanded, but instead spent 3 years on battalion and brigade staffs, in
addition to his 6 years on the line as a platoon leader and XO. He has a great background
for a joint staff position, a Master`s degree that could get him into a functional area
(public affairs, comptroller, etc.) and a solid background within his regiment. He has be
assigned to 3 different battalions.
VII. The Cavalry
Ah yes, the Cav. Where will officers belonging to 2nd ACR rotate? 3rd ACR? No. I
propose that we partner up the ACRs with the divisional cavalry "regiments" and those of
1st Cavalry Division; using both squadrons and battalions allows the officers to get both
cavalry and armor experience. 2nd ACR would retain its name and unit, and its officers
would rotate through the 8th Cavalry Regiment, which would have 2 battalions at Ft.
Hood, a squadron in Korea, and a squadron at Ft. Drum. In this case, "battalion" is used
to refer to a TOE tank battalion, and squadron refers to a divisional cavalry squadron.
The Colonel of the Regiment still oversees his respective officers, but the Armored
Cavalry Regiments will almost definitely an O-5 assistant to the commander (besides the
S-1) to maintain the regimental headquarters functions. In addition to that, a "composite"
squadron can be used for cavalry training at Ft. Knox. 8-6 CAV could be the
administrative HQ for W Troop, 3rd ACR and X Troop, 2nd ACR, both containing
platoons of 19Ds and 19Ks.
This plan would require very close coordination between the Regimental HQs of both the
2nd and 8th Cavalry Regiments. They would need to work together on assignments and
officer development. Again, limiting the current number of cavlary regiments on active
duty should help.
We currently have 10 regiments on active duty, with 20 squadrons between them. I think
we can limit that to 4 regiments, plus the ACRs. This allows us to partner each full ACR
with two regiments, and the 11th could be associated with any one of the regiments, since
there is only one battalion there. Each regiment should contain a mix of heavy divisional
cavalry, light divisional cavalry, and tank battalions from 1st Cavalry Division. For
example, the 8th Cavalry could have 1-8 and 2-8 at Ft. Hood (tank battalions), 3-8 as
divisional cavalry in Korea, and 5-8 in Ft. Drum as the light divisional cavalry. 4-8, the
training squadron, would likely contain 2 companies of armor OSUT and 2 of scout
OSUT. 2nd ACR could then rotate their officers through both 8th Cavalry, and 10th
Cavalry (Div cav at Ft. Hood, Germany, and Hawaii, and 1 tank battalion in Ft. Hood).
Infantry officers rotating through 5th Cavalry at Ft. Hood should all come from the same
infantry regiment, and should also be partnered with the 11th ACR for the infantry
squadron there, giving that particular infantry regiment a broad base of experience and
assignment options.
VIII. Conclusions
Many people will see this a too radical or too unwieldy. "We tried that in the `80s," will
become a common refrain. What we tried in the 1980s was to affiliate soldiers with
regiments, rather than assigning soldiers to regiments. By incorporating the Colonels of
the Regiments, and Regimental Headquarters to track the soldiers assigned to them, we
ensure that those officers and NCOs in the regiment truly belong. There would obviously
be exceptions made for compassionate reassignments and unaccompanied tours.
We will lose many regiments off of active duty (17 under my proposal!). It will require
quite a bit of reflagging, and hard choices made about who to keep, but we also cased the
colors on both the 7th Infantry and 2nd Armored Divisions. I am not advocating the
closure of any units, just redesignation.
I believe that regimental assignments and tracking would improve soldier care and
morale, unit cohesion and effectiveness, and allow us to revive the traditions of our force
that we`ve lost through years of "block check" assignments.
Those "block check" assignments have come about because of an overly-large officer
force and an attempt made to "homogenize" the force, giving everyone the same
experiences and opportunities. The new OPMS XXI dabbles in fixing this, but doesn`t go
far enough. It still retains far too many officers on active duty, and tries to get every one
of them both primary staff time and a chance to be a company commander, creating the
annual "Captain shuffle" we see in every battalion.
All combat arms officers are not created equal. Recognizing this is the first step toward
allowing everyone to contribute to the best of their ability. Where regimental tracking
will increase the esprit-de-corps of the force, and allow us to give more personalized
attention to the development of the officer corps and senior NCOs, it also allows to
ensure that everyone`s contributions are maximized by placing them in positions where
they can perform to their best.